[nucrow]

Imagine we could, with the snap of a finger, come up with an AI tutor that is objectively better than human TAs. Better as in: between 2 groups of 10,000 students, those with AI tutors do better on perfomance metrics 95% of the time than those students with human tutors. Would you be opposed to replacing human tutors then?

If your answer is yes, (in some flavor of "protecting and helping the jobs of those who teach), I would argue your ethics are focused on the wrong group. Teaching is for students to learn, not for teachers to have jobs.

We don't have said technology yet, but it's reasonable to think we can get close. If there's a good chance to improve how well students can learn, I don't think "teachers don't appreciate it" is a good reason not to do it.

[throw46365]

> Would you be opposed to replacing human tutors then?

Yes.

> If your answer is yes, (in some flavor of "protecting and helping the jobs of those who teach), I would argue your ethics are focused on the wrong group. Teaching is for students to learn, not for teachers to have jobs.

OK. But your framing here projects upon me the idea that I'm solely concerned about replacing jobs, in order for your argument to succeed. (Though again, that is the cold-rationalist AI zeitgeist[0]: why should people have jobs when an AI can do it?)

It elides the possibility that it is inherently better to learn from a real person, who has invested time and effort into teaching you. What is the point of higher education in particular if you are not learning, at some point, from people who are directly adjacent to cutting edge thinking?

> We don't have said technology yet, but it's reasonable to think we can get close. If there's a good chance to improve how well students can learn, I don't think "teachers don't appreciate it" is a good reason not to do it.

Well then. I can't argue with this, if you think it's OK to take humanity out of teaching. I think — perhaps feel — you are so wrong that I can barely even string the words together to explain. And that is an unbridgeable divide.

[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/05/opena... or https://archive.ph/AL81B

'In response to one question about AGI rendering jobs obsolete, Jeff Wu, an engineer for the company, confessed, “It’s kind of deeply unfair that, you know, a group of people can just build AI and take everyone’s jobs away, and in some sense, there’s nothing you can do to stop them right now.” He added, “I don’t know. Raise awareness, get governments to care, get other people to care. Yeah. Or join us and have one of the few remaining jobs. I don’t know; it’s rough.”'

[nucrow]

> It elides the possibility that it is inherently better to learn from a real person, who has invested time and effort into teaching you.

I did elude it, for the sake of the argument. If it turns out that in fact human tutoring is fundamentally better, then there's of course no point in using an inferior system (sweeping accesibility and other concerns under the rug). Go humans, if we're better!

> What is the point of higher education in particular if you are not learning, at some point, from people who are directly adjacent to cutting edge thinking?

For the subset that do research, this matters a lot. But for most everyone else looking for a better job, it's not really relevant.

> Well then. I can't argue with this, if you think it's OK to take humanity out of teaching. I think — perhaps feel — you are so wrong that I can barely even string the words together to explain. And that is an unbridgeable divide

I appreciate your candidness, and perhaps it's true that we may just not be able to agree. For what it's worth, my bet is tutors' quality will improve, rather than them getting displaced. My point however is: I want my kid to learn as best as possible. If that turns out to be with a robot, I'm not making my kid worse off to save some guy's job.